Falklands' Most Daring Raid

[Crag_r]

So another one of my videos i want to share;

 

 

This one been one of the more interesting ones about a modern military operation which im sure many of you assumed was a just Naval based. This shows great sacrifice which without, the whole British Naval operation could have gone drastically differently;

 

[Jager_Panther1]

there has been alot of tension in resent months about the Falkland islands...

[_Jeremiah_Gottwald]

Jager_Panther1, on 04 January 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

there has been alot of tension in resent months about the Falkland islands...

I saw that on the news while sitting in my Dentists office today. Argentina wants the UK out of there.

[Crag_r]

andypandy1996, on 04 January 2013 - 01:56 AM, said:

I saw that on the news while sitting in my Dentists office today. Argentina wants the UK out of there.

Unless the UN does it then it is going to get the same result as before...

[_Jeremiah_Gottwald]

Crag_r, on 04 January 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

Unless the UN does it then it is going to get the same result as before...

Great....another battle over a few islands.

[BigWaveSurfer]

when i saw the heading i thought u were talking about how the German armoured cruiser Scharnhorst and Gueisenau stop in there in WWI and took British coal to fuel the ships...didn't work so well the 2nd time they tryed it...'who put those British battlecruiser in that port anyway'  :Smile_ohmy:

[_Jeremiah_Gottwald]

Nah. We're talking about the more recent conflict and the building tension that's going on around that area.

[madmanthan21]

good post crag

[JeeWeeJ]

Finalyl got the chance to watch it. Thanks for sharing crag!

[Ariecho]

Good video (+1).

 

That (unfortunately) also shows the level of preparedness of some of the European Air Forces (it's not typical to the British).  

 

I saw similar experiences during Desert Storm, when pretty much everybody, with the exception of the US, was cannibalizing whatever they could to get a decent fighting force in Iraq.  

 

I used to joke with my Navy counterparts about how you could distinguish between the Clemenceau and the Foch.  The Foch was the one without any trucks, as the only way the French military found to transport heavy equipment to Iraq was to stage it on the deck of one of their aircraft carriers.

[KingCamper]

thanks - everyone keep posting - i never seen a documentry about this - plus 1 for you

[Crag_r]

You know what they say, rule Britannia

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

[Removed] Sorry Crag, will repost somewhere else.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

[Removed] Will repost somewhere else.  Sorry, Crag.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

[Removed]  Sorry, Crag.  I'll repost this somewhere else.

[nixxxie]

Unfortunately, British have tied hands when it comes to threats: http://en.wikipedia....y_of_Tlatelolco

[Crag_r]

t42592, on 11 January 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

[Removed] Sorry Crag, will repost somewhere else.

t42592, on 11 January 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

[Removed] Will repost somewhere else.  Sorry, Crag.

t42592, on 11 January 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

[Removed]  Sorry, Crag.  I'll repost this somewhere else.

Hey i don't mind, they were fantastic videos. Although i suppose some might say that was thread jacking

nixxxie, on 11 January 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Unfortunately, British have tied hands when it comes to threats: http://en.wikipedia....y_of_Tlatelolco

Treaty of Tlatelolco didn't really affect the British in the Falklands, Nuclear weapons were never a consideration by the British, as they easily got the UN mandate to take back the Falklands. And when it comes to Nuclear war these third world treaties would not mean much to a nuclear state, plus the UK can still get around it by using subs based in international waters.

[nixxxie]

I don't have the text of this treaty but it's not so simple. Even rejecting this treaty now would be dangerous international precendent. They can have their nuke subs where they want to but they cannot use them there without violation. And they cannot threaten with them.

Unfortunately, Argentinian government is highly militarized so they understand threats best. And conventional warfare one isn't enough for them.

 

When it comes to nuclear war, i agree, one nuke and all bets are off - as all treaties are, everything instantly goes total. Because of that, i had in mind nukes as a threat, not for real use.

[igorfc]

nixxxie, on 11 January 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

I don't have the text of this treaty but it's not so simple. Even rejecting this treaty now would be dangerous international precendent. They can have their nuke subs where they want to but they cannot use them there without violation. And they cannot threaten with them.
Unfortunately, Argentinian government is highly militarized so they understand threats best. And conventional warfare one isn't enough for them.

When it comes to nuclear war, i agree, one nuke and all bets are off - as all treaties are, everything instantly goes total. Because of that, i had in mind nukes as a threat, not for real use.

  Argentinia government isn't highly militarized, Argentina back in 2009 or 10, was the country that had  less investiments in their armed forces compared to their Gross domestic product in the world, what happens is that argentina have a crazy [edited]leftist with preferences for dictatorship president, so in order to seek for support, she improved a little bit the investments in their military, and promised them a lot of new equipments, higher wages etc.. and started again with this nationalist stupidity regarding the Falklands as an apeal to their military and to make the people think in other subjects other than the country's ridiculous financial situation, they're ********* as hell, the people are making lots of protests...

Profanity. Warning issued.~nTwo

[nixxxie]

igorfc, on 11 January 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

  Argentinia government isn't highly militarized, Argentina back in 2009 or 10, was the country that had  less investiments in their armed forces compared to their Gross domestic product in the world, what happens is that argentina have a crazy [edited]leftist with preferences for dictatorship president, so in order to seek for support, she improved a little bit the investments in their military, and promised them a lot of new equipments, higher wages etc.. and started again with this nationalist stupidity regarding the Falklands as an apeal to their military and to make the people think in other subjects other than the country's ridiculous financial situation, they're ********* as hell, the people are making lots of protests...
Profanity. Warning issued.~nTwo

That's what i meant by "highly militarized" - it all comes to minds and trades, not having weapons themselves. It's what they think and plan that bothers me.

[Meriv]

Nixxie having lived in argentina i can say that they arent highly militarized, at all, it is just populism to take away the attention from more important matter, just as Igorfc said and i totaly agree on the insults too.

 

If you are looking for a highly militarized country that is Chile, the army it is the backbone of the country, just see what Pinotchet said (sorry ntwo but it is what he said, no offense intented, it is just  for the records) after the reunion of Germany and the fall of the wall, " We are the true heirs the of prussian army, germans are just a bunch of [edited]"i don't remember the exact words but that was the message, their parada uniform still has the Pickelhaube and the cloack from the past the 19th century! They spend 3% on army while argentina spend just 1% of their GDP,just take a look of their mechanized battalions comparing  taking in cosideration the size of the country and that is SA.

[igorfc]

Nice to see another south american friend here, well, back to the subject, as my friend above said, this is just pure populism, I think the Argentinian( I don't know how to spell it in english) gorvement is not dumb enough to try anything related to the Falklands, they're never going to try anything against GB, it's suicide, and even if they do, GB would end this in a few weeks, no big war or nuclear weapons as was theorized in other posts, this treats are simple political maneuvers made by a bad, radical, populist goverment...

But let's leave politics aside, as this is a forum which the objective is fun and sharing naval warfare knowlege, politics don't have a place here...

 

PS: and I don't want to be charged of profanity again hahahaha

[Meriv]

Igor sorry to say this, but i higly dislike brasialin imperialism too, but politcs are forbiden in this forum :(

 

what would have been interessing would have been seeing the paraguayan defense industry that was developing in the 19 century if england wouldn't have pushed for the triple alliance war.

 

Another plus for GB is that in SA they have always made their best decisions, they have manouvered the continent in an amazing way (a state of the art of diplomacy)

[igorfc]

Don't be so sorry, though I'am a proud Brazilian, I also dislike the positions took by our goverment, but I don't think they're "imperialists", actually they're a lot of other thinks that I'll not say because I'll be charged for profanity again hehe, and because as you said, politics are forbiden in this forum, just to make myself clear, I'am not saying "Argentina is a bad, Brazil is all-mighty", what I'am saying is that I don't agree with their politics, neither from Brasil or from Argentina...

 

PS: it's also important to say that the politics adopted by the countries not always reflect their people, we cannot judge the people from a country based on the country's politics, actually we cannot judge anyone...

[nixxxie]

GB isn't that almighty power it had been. No European country is.

 

Even populistic, that way of thinking is still militaristic to me. As i said, it's no equipment that matters. And it doesn't take much to do big trouble.

Don't feel insulted, any of you.

 

And highly militarized country is North Korea.